1) The behavior of people has changed substantively since the first study. (Which is what the present study seems to be concluding.)
2) At least one of the studies wasn’t representative and/or didn’t actually measure what it claimed to measure. (That is, an exhibit of the replication crisis.)
What I’m saying is that explanation 2 seems much more plausible to me, given that the results of the first study don’t match my recollection and experience at all.
> the results of the first study don’t match my recollection and experience at all.
30 years ago you had some anecdotal impressions. 30 years ago the researchers had a hypothesis, focused on this exact question, designed an experiment, and collected evidence. (And many since have found it valid.) 30 years later, we have a detailed written report of their experience, and your 30-year old memory as posted on HN.
It's just too easy to say, 'that's not my experience' without evidence. Everything is 'debunked' on that basis. Now we have 30 year old memories too.
If you mean that yours and/or layer8's perspectives are a 'real thing', you don't have a privileged claim on reality, of course (and neither do I).
Do you have evidence of that, or are you saying it looks the same?
The replication crisis on HN is replication of these comments in every discussion of social science research. The papers that they tried to replicate at least were at least based on evidence, and the conclusion was not that they were completely wrong but that, for many papers (not all by any measure), the conclusion was replicated but the evidence wasn't quite as strong as in the original.